COPD exacerbations: the impact of long versus short courses of oral corticosteroids on mortality and pneumonia: nationwide data on 67 000 patients with COPD followed for 12 months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: A large group of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are exposed to an overload of oral corticosteroids (OCS) due to repeated exacerbations. This is associated with potential serious adverse effects. Therefore, we evaluated the impact of a recommended reduction of OCS duration in 2014 on the risk of pneumonia hospitalisation and all-cause mortality in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). Methods: This was a nationwide observational cohort study that was based on linked administrative registry data between 1 January 2010 and 31 October 2017. 10 152 outpatients with COPD (median age 70 years) treated with either a short (≤250 mg) or long course (>250 mg) of OCS for AECOPD were included in the study. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to derive an estimation of multivariable adjusted HRs (aHRs) for pneumonia hospitalisation or all-cause mortality combined and pneumonia hospitalisation and all-cause mortality, separately. Results: The long course of OCS treatment for AECOPD was associated with an increased 1-year risk of pneumonia hospitalisation or all-cause mortality (aHR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.4; p<0.0001), pneumonia hospitalisation (aHR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.3; p=0.0110) and all-cause mortality (aHR 1.8, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.2; p<0.0001) as compared with the short course of OCS treatment. These results were confirmed in several sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: The change of recommendations from long courses to short courses of OCS for AECOPD in 2014 was strongly associated with a decrease in pneumonia admissions and all-cause mortality, in favour of short courses of OCS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".